tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post113703278534272358..comments2015-07-28T19:30:42.550-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: The Philosophy of DesignAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1139524142842270882006-02-09T15:29:00.000-07:002006-02-09T15:29:00.000-07:00Joshua BallardI am actually aware of a number of d...<B>Joshua Ballard</B><BR/><BR/>I am actually aware of a number of different ways to try to avoid this objection, and there will never be enough space to cover all of them.<BR/><BR/>However, if there is a substance that is immune to the "irreducibly complex" requirement, then there is no reason to infer design. It would be sufficient to assume that apparently irreducibly complex entities contain this substance that is immune to the "irreducibly complex" requirement. Whatever that is.Alonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1139516531261389092006-02-09T13:22:00.000-07:002006-02-09T13:22:00.000-07:00There is a bit of an issue there in your "3 pillar...There is a bit of an issue there in your "3 pillars"<BR/><BR/>Dembski makes a case for the ultimate designer not being physical, and therefore not subject to the "irreducibly complex" argument. Certainly Christianity agrees, with the statement that "God is Spirit" and the eternally self-existent "I am". <BR/><BR/>Check out his book "The Design Revolution", It contains a bit more information than his older "The Design Inference". If you actually devote some time to actually reading the WHOLE thing instead of individual chapters, you develop an understanding of his argument as a whole.Joshua Ballardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04211203233485976913noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1137461438656706552006-01-16T18:30:00.000-07:002006-01-16T18:30:00.000-07:00Court cases do have a tendency to get such lousy c...Court cases do have a tendency to get such lousy classes out of schools. Sure, the teachers may need to be fired for incompetence -- but of course, that doesn't work in the case of Dover, Pennsylvania, where it was the school board itself which advocated ID over the objections of the teachers.<BR/><BR/>Court cases may not be perfect solutions, but they offer a fair and unbiased forum where there are rules of evidence to keep the fight for truth fair. <BR/><BR/>Broadcast the trials. Get competent commentators. Get competent reporters. Those would help, too.<BR/><BR/>Having competent parents and competent citizens would also help.<BR/><BR/>We have to start somewhere. Why not go to court to fight this one, now?Ed Darrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06041161650761624155noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1137287200900106502006-01-14T18:06:00.000-07:002006-01-14T18:06:00.000-07:00AnonymousYou seem to be proving my point.In my pos...<B>Anonymous</B><BR/><BR/>You seem to be proving my point.<BR/><BR/>In my post, I presented an inconsistent triad; three propositions that, when taken together, contradict each other.<BR/><BR/>However much you may want to insult me, this is still in inconsistent triad. It will remain an inconsistent triad until the end up time.<BR/><BR/>Insulting me is only a tactic -- an attempt to change the subject so that people will not see the inconsistency. It is a magician's trick -- a destraction, whose purpose is to cause the audience to look at what the left hand is doing while the right hand hides the ball.<BR/><BR/>Here, the audience consists of my readers -- most of whom know better than to fall for these tactics.<BR/><BR/>In a 9th grade biology class, the victims are impressionable students, being tricked into accepting incoherence as truth, while also learning that insults and distractions make for "good arguments".<BR/><BR/>Where schools are supposed to be making 9th graders smarter, these tactics instead seduce them into stupidity. That leaves all of us worse off than we would otherwise be.Alonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1137275206527914282006-01-14T14:46:00.000-07:002006-01-14T14:46:00.000-07:00I find it rather strange that you do not like Inte...I find it rather strange that you do not like Intellgent Design teaching it's philosophy because it is just preaching.<BR/><BR/>What does the Theory of evolution or philosophy of evolution do ? Does it not preach its own presuppositions. Its own little faith !!<BR/><BR/>You seem to think you are rational believing the impersonal produced the personal, which gives us our rational minds we have, well I dont think so,<BR/><BR/>Again athiests just want to be the measure of all things.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com